On 5/29/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I doubt infinities.
I can doubt actual infinities. Not potential infinities, which gives sense to any non
stooping program notion.
Comp is ontologically
On 31 May 2012, at 18:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/29/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I doubt infinities.
I can doubt actual infinities. Not potential infinities, which
gives sense to any non
On 5/29/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I doubt infinities.
I can doubt actual infinities. Not potential infinities, which gives sense to any non
stooping program notion.
Comp is ontologically finitist. As long as you don't claim that there is a biggest prime
number, there should be no
On 27 May 2012, at 20:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/27/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Bruno said, Provable is always relative to some axioms and
rules of inference. It is quite independent of true of
reality. Which is why I'm highly suspicious of ideas like
deriving all of reality
On 27 May 2012, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
Thanks, Brent and Bruno. You are kind to respond.
The point I wanted to approach (far approach, indeed) is that
whatever we derive (mentally) about Nature comes from our human
mind, be it binary or not.
We don't know that. We believe that.
I
On 5/28/2012 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 20:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/27/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Bruno said, Provable is always relative to some axioms and rules of inference.
It is quite independent of true of reality. Which is why I'm highly suspicious
On 28 May 2012, at 18:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/28/2012 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 May 2012, at 20:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/27/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Bruno said, Provable is always relative to some axioms and
rules of inference. It is quite independent of true
On 27 May 2012, at 00:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable
things would be true of reality.
Just to be clear, I didn't write 1. above. But I did write 2. below.
Ah OK. Sorry. I
On 27 May 2012, at 01:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt:
On 5/27/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As Bruno said, Provable is always relative to some axioms and rules of inference. It
is quite independent of true of reality. Which is why I'm highly suspicious of
ideas like deriving all of reality from arithmetic, which we know only from axioms
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is
consistent can be formalized into an axiomatic system, for example
by using one axiom to assert the truth of each independent
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is consistent can be
formalized into an axiomatic system, for example by using one
Bruno wrote:
--
*Provable depends on the theory. If the theory is unsound, what it proves
might well be false.*
*And if you trust the theory, then you know that the theory is consistent
is true, yet the theory itself cannot prove it, so reality is larger that
what you can prove in that
Brent wrote:
*1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things
would be true of reality.*
**
*2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the axiom of
succession just one or is it a schema of infinitely many axioms?*
**
Appreciable, even in layman's logic.
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content that is
consistent can be formalized into an
On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
/1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things would be
true of reality./
Just to be clear, I didn't write 1. above. But I did write 2. below.
//
/2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the
On 5/26/2012 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2012, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/26/2012 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Mar 2012, at 06:18, meekerdb wrote (two month agao):
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Excerpt: Any system with finite information content
On 3/1/2012 7:37 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Zannelli wrote:
The Relativity of Existence
Authors: Stuart Heinrich
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au
On 3/1/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Zannelli wrote:
The Relativity of Existence
Authors: Stuart Heinrich
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Heinrich_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); General Relativity and
Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Zannelli wrote:
The Relativity of Existence
Authors: Stuart
Heinrichhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Heinrich_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph
On 3/2/2012 03:37, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:14 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/1/2012 9:27 AM, Bob Zannelli wrote:
The Relativity of Existence
Authors: Stuart
Heinrichhttp://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Heinrich_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
Subjects: History
21 matches
Mail list logo
